Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: NRA-ILA Sellout in Virginia
From: [j g d] at [dixie.com] (John De Armond)
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 93 06:25:54 GMT

[w--li--s] at [bigsow.enet.dec.com] (Bryan H. Williams) writes:

>This was posted to the firearms-politics mailing list in response to the
>original posting by John De Armond and responses to that posting. Bear in
>mind that some of the issues addressed here came up in that forum and not 
>this one, so parts may sound unfamiliar.

Nice of 'em to hide out on a mailing list instead of debating the issue 
here.  I thought I was on all the firearms mailing lists. Guess not
on this one.  Anyone care to give me an address?

I've faxed a copy of this post off to Howard at CSG for an official reply.
I'm responding to the parts I know about.


>Fellow Activists,

>I have been digging around, talking to people, including Bill Stump, Chuck
>Cunningham, and a few NRA BoD members. I have some documents in my possession,
>and some more are supposed to be on their way. I'm posting what information I
>have found out about this situation, and I hope you will take this with the
>spirit it is intended.

>I know I'm butting in another state's affairs, but this kind of controversy
>and bickering among ourselves really needs to stop.

Seems like that's the same argument we heard from the Cassidy bunch a few
years ago.  "Just you be quiet and don't question us.  We know what's
good for you."    That's how we woke up two years ago here in Georgia
with two anti-gun bills on the table, both with the NRA good housekeeping
stamp of approval.

Sorry but this "bickering" is going to continue until we no longer have
to doubt NRA's 100% committment to no compromise, no gun control ever.
I consider myself part of the loyal opposition, though my loyalty to
NRA has waned a bit lately.  I believe our cause is just and righteous
enough that it can withstand public debate.  We don't have to hide behind
closed doors and lie and snivel like the Brady bunch does.

>       BTW, Bill Stump is also planning on voting for the LaRouche candidate.

Amateurish attempt at a character smear.

>3) In a letter from Del. Thomas Baker Jr (VA 7th district, NRA rated A+),  he
>says that he voted for HB2273 because ... Charles Cunningham gave it his 
>blessing.

> 	I have this letter, it doesn't say this. It says, "Given the tone of
>        your letter, it is apparent that no explanation from me would be 
>        satisfactory. With that in mind, I have asked Charles Cunningham, of 
>        the NRA, to speak with you about your inquiries." The tone of Stump's
>	letter to Del Baker was pretty extreme.

No you don't.  That letter is dated 02/08/93 from Rep Baker to Stump.

The letter in question is dated 03/05 from Mims and says in part:

"I staunchly opposed this bill when it first came to the house after
narrowly being approved by the Senate.  HOWEVER, the bill's patron met
with representatives from the National Rifle Association and the
Virginia Firearms Dealers Association, among others groups, and agreed
to every amendment that concerned firearms owners [as represented by
NRA.]"

The copies of these letters are too poor to scan and I'm not going to 
type them in but I'll make copies for anyone who sends me a SASE
with enough postage for about 20 pages.

>4) A hand-written note that says Mike Farris, who won the nomination for Lt
>Governor on June 5th, was refused money from NRA-ILA but donated $50,000 to 
>his opponent. 

>Dave Barton responded:

>        George Allen got $25,000. Mike Farris got no direct contribution, but
>	got a targeted mailing sent to the delegates who were NRA members.
>        Jim Gilmore was also endorsed in this mailing. The NRA-PVF gave no
>	contributions to any Lt Gov Candidate or AG candidate. 

One still must ask why NRA didn't directly support a candidate with the 
apparent credentials of Farris.  Rare is is to find a politician who states
his pro-gun position so directly.

>4) Chuck Cunningham was "the person who cut the deal for the MD Handgun roster 
>board."

>        Chuck Cunningham was the ILA Rep to MD at the time, and he says that 
>        the NRA had nothing to do with any deal for the MD Handgun Roster 
>        board. You'll have to provide more information about this (i.e. prove
>        your assertion).

I've asked for substantiation from the person who provided this information.

>9) Attempts to get the NRA-ILA interested in this forum have been abjectly
>   dismissed. "If they want to complain that it's irrelevant to them -- which
>   they have done -- fine and fair enough, but one cannot then complain as 
>   well that they're somehow inaccessible.                              

[...]

>        To the point, I have told them, and several others familiar with what
>        happens here and in T.P.G, that it is NOT worth their time to monitor
>        the net lists. They are still spread too thinly across the states, and 
>        the time it would to separate the "signal" from the "noise" is simply 
>        not cost effective for them. Some take "good" information from here 
>        and t.p.g and forward to them. I know I'm not the only one who does 
>        this.

>        We are currently working on getting them "send-only" access so at 
>        least ILA and the Grassroots office can alert us quickly to something,
>        and communicate with email. We'll see if this gets very far...

>10) If you're worried about Usenet's talk.politics.guns...well, if they cared
>    -- and they might well not -- they _could_ have gotten access any number of
>    ways and places in the last several years.  

>        Again, they are not that interested just now, and after seeing their
>        operation, I think that's the right decision FOR THEM.

>	You do have at least one member of the NRA BoD that reads here, and
>        several others that get paper copies of interesting stuff. ILA gets
>	some stuff too, just not directly.

I think it goes farther than this.  They're pissing a lot of effort away
on the BBS - and charging for it to boot - when they could be on the net
where anyone with internet access could reach them.  Judging from CSG's
encounter with that woman who runs the BBS, I can imagine that BBS is
costing NRA plenty.  Based on my experience I think NRA is avoiding
being on the net.  Here's one tidbit.  After I posted a couple of years
ago about the debacle that happened within GSSA here in Georgia I got
a paper letter from Bill Davis, BOD member and Knox buddy.  In this
letter and one subsequent one he complained about a lot but among them
was the complaint that it wasn't fair for me to speak out since he could
not reply directly.  His letters were printed on a dot matrix printer
so I assumed he was at least a bit computer literate.  I ignored the 
first letter but after the second one I dropped a subscription to 
dixie.com (my public access system) marked "complimentary" in the mail
to him.  Never heard a word back.  I don't want anyone to be deprived
of net access who wants to debate the issues.  

I extend that offer to ILA or NRA people.  If someone from NRA/ILA
wants an official presence on the net, an account is sitting here ready 
and waiting at no charge.  This is the same arrangement I offered to 
CSG and they accepted.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |    (Pardon the inconvenience while we 
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) |    remodel this .signature)
Marietta, Ga                         |
[j g d] at [dixie.com]                        |